The differences

[mykcob4]

In a discussion about the recent rash of elected officials being investigated and indicted my neighbor stated "All politicians are the same.' I told him that is a very cynical statement that bears no resemblance to the truth.
The fact is that less than 3 % on any given year are elected officials ever indicted or charged with a crime. Our discussion went even farther and his outlook was that all politicians are working for "the man". This is an idea perpetuated by the conservatives to disillusion Liberals into thinking that all politicians work only for large corporations or corrupt organizations. It's just like them (the conservatives) saying that all unions are controlled by the mafia...also an untrue statement.
But lets look at what the conservatives defend:
The Duck Dynasty rant of hate and homophobia
Huckabee's vent rant against women's rights.
In fact over the last 30 some odd years the conservatives have defended voter suppression, racial profiling, Corporate charity and tax breaks for the rich, have been against workers organizing, minimum wage raise, tax breaks for the middle class, environmental protection, work place safety standards, finance reform and regulation, education, science, gun laws of any kind, consumer rights and protection, tort against corporate crimes.
In all it is the standard for conservatives to deny opportunity, enslave workers, increase civic danger, dumb down and eradicate education, deny science, revise history, impose and establish a religion, protect corporate criminality and monopolies, create wars, increase executions, pollute the planet air water and land and generally go against everything that is fair and just in this nation and the world.
Their end game seems to be a monoculture ruled by corrupt corporate monopolies that would control who and how you have sex, what to believe, and subjugating everyone making women and minorities 3rd class citizens. They would destroy art as being unnecessary. I don't see one redeeming factor by them. They are wrong on every single issue.
Lets look at the Chris Christie issue. In defense of the troubled governor, many conservatives have raised Benghazi bombing even though one doesn't justify the other and they are completely different. Every investigation into Benghazi has cleared Obama and the State department of intention, mismanagement or wrong doing. The fact is that the republicans striped the State department of vital defense funds for adequate protection. When Sen. Darrell Issa was given the final report on the matter he dropped it like a hot potato and created a different investigation.
Christie on the other hand is a completely different matter. His management of storm Sandy funds and extortion plus the lane closing at Fort Lee are criminal and intentional.
I know many of you will say that the Dems are just as complicate as the repubs for working for the interest of corrupt corps, but it just isn't true. Yes the dems do get money from wealthy donors and large corporations, but if you look who is actually donating the money, they are not the wild out of control criminal corrupt monopolies that repubs are funded by. They are companies that have been fair and just to not only their workers but to society at large.  The dems don't defend hate.
So in combating the cynicism of all politicians are alike, I say no they are not and the proof is in their actions, and who and what they defend.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

But...but. .we hug trees and sing Kumbya when things go bad!  :shock:

[billhilly]

Yes the dems do get money from wealthy donors and large corporations, but if you look who is actually donating the money, they are not the wild out of control criminal corrupt monopolies that repubs are funded by. They are companies that have been fair and just to not only their workers but to society at large. The dems don't defend hate.

Um, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America are "companies that have been fair and just to not only their workers but to society at large"?

I get that you believe the Dems are a better choice and I tend to agree up to a point but it is still a lesser of two evils deal.

[EntirelyOfThisWorld]

To say they are all the same may be an over simplification, but for sure they are not as far apart as Faux News and NPR (National Pravda Radio) would have us believe.  As far as there being a lot of difference between Faux, and the "liberal" NPR, I just heard a reporter on the local NPR station refer to Citizens United as a court decision that allowed "Unions and others" to make unlimited political donations.  No mention of course that those "others" (Fortune 500 corporations) outspend unions in this regard by a whole bunch.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

NPR and PBS have drastically changed formats from just a few years ago,  but not why you might think. They've had to seek private funding sources and so have become beholden to many of the same interests that every other broadcasting company has. The rubes keep cutting funding because they just wouldn't try to sell the right wingnut agenda, but now they have to tread that fine line between the public good vs corporate good.

[barbarian]

But...but. .we hug trees and sing Kumbya when things go bad!  :shock:

I generally pull out my chain saw and swear a lot when things go bad, not hug trees and speak Swahili.  #-o

[AllPurposeAtheist]

But...but. .we hug trees and sing Kumbya when things go bad!  :shock:

I generally pull out my chain saw and swear a lot when things go bad, not hug trees and speak Swahili.  #-o

Impressive... :-|

[mykcob4]

Yes the dems do get money from wealthy donors and large corporations, but if you look who is actually donating the money, they are not the wild out of control criminal corrupt monopolies that repubs are funded by. They are companies that have been fair and just to not only their workers but to society at large. The dems don't defend hate.

Um, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America are "companies that have been fair and just to not only their workers but to society at large"?

I get that you believe the Dems are a better choice and I tend to agree up to a point but it is still a lesser of two evils deal.

Goldman Sachs indeed gives a few dollars to Democrats, but not much. They actually give huge amounts of cash to republicans and their campaigns. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/1 ... 12370.html
They only give money to Dems to hedge their bets a practice that they employ for everything. BTW the same goes for Bank of America.

[mykcob4]

To say they are all the same may be an over simplification, but for sure they are not as far apart as Faux News and NPR (National Pravda Radio) would have us believe.  As far as there being a lot of difference between Faux, and the "liberal" NPR, I just heard a reporter on the local NPR station refer to Citizens United as a court decision that allowed "Unions and others" to make unlimited political donations.  No mention of course that those "others" (Fortune 500 corporations) outspend unions in this regard by a whole bunch.

Calling PBS and NPR "Pravda" is not very accurate. NPR and PBS are the most accurate and least biased of all the news sources. Just because PBS and NPR don't sell the conservative agenda doesn't in the least bit make them Liberal at all!

[Jack89]

I supported the "dems" for the last 2 major elections thinking they were the lesser of two evils.  What a mistake.  All I see now is a national debt that's increased by 7 trillion dollars since the dems took the helm and a health care plan doomed to failure.  The dems have a basket full of lofty ideals that are never implemented as intended, and seem to cause more problems than they solve.

The "dems" have convinced me to take on a libertarian point of view.  That's the best I can say about them at this point.

So disappointed.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Because the fish stick magnate's little boy is better.. :roll:

[josephpalazzo]

I supported the "dems" for the last 2 major elections thinking they were the lesser of two evils.  What a mistake.  All I see now is a national debt that's increased by 7 trillion dollars since the dems took the helm and a health care plan doomed to failure.  The dems have a basket full of lofty ideals that are never implemented as intended, and seem to cause more problems than they solve.

Now it's true that the national debt increased more under Obama than Bush. But here are the differences: under Bush, a good part of the increase of the debt was/is structural. Aside from the Iraqi war, which was not structural but were not included in the financial statements under Bush - and that was put into the books only when Obama took over - the  tax cuts he implanted were structural until 2013, and the prescription drug program still is. OTOH, Obama inherited the worst economy since the 1930's. Bush inherited a healthy economy from Clinton, one that was even producing  surplusses instead of deficit. And in order to avert the economic catastrophe of 2008, it was necessary to implement deficit expansionary budgets, and these are not structural. Since then, the economy has slowly recovered, the deficit has been slashed to less than half than what it was in 2008, and we avoided the 25% unemployment rate that prominently figured in the 1930's.

And lastly, unless you have a crystal ball, the ACA is anything but doomed to failure.  

The "dems" have convinced me to take on a libertarian point of view.  That's the best I can say about them at this point.

So disappointed.

That's like jumping from the fire to a pot of hot boiling water.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

That's like jumping from the fire to a pot of hot boiling water.

...full of Mrs PAUL'S fish sticks. :-?

[DavidQuinn]

All very valid points, and just a heads up about a book i just read that seems to supply this fabled political alternative, albeit in a world of fiction! There series is called the chronicles of hope so i assume it'll turn into a bit of political utopia - here's an interview with the lead guy, all opinions of course but i agree with virtually everything said here, reminds me of george carlin - http://thechroniclesofhope.com/get-to-know-frank/

[mykcob4]

I supported the "dems" for the last 2 major elections thinking they were the lesser of two evils.  What a mistake.  All I see now is a national debt that's increased by 7 trillion dollars since the dems took the helm and a health care plan doomed to failure.  The dems have a basket full of lofty ideals that are never implemented as intended, and seem to cause more problems than they solve.

The "dems" have convinced me to take on a libertarian point of view.  That's the best I can say about them at this point.

So disappointed.

Repub obstruction is the reason things aren't being fully implemented, you should know that. Libertarian ideals are nothing more than a conservative failure program. The idea of everyone living in a dog eat dog society is just foolish. Libertarian doesn't stand for LIBERTY. It stands for the powerful taking advantage of the less fortunate because they have the means and opportunity to do so. Libertarian is a scam.
If you have a libertarian type of government you don't have roads unless you can afford to build your own. You don't have education unless you can directly pay for it. No clean water, no clean air, pollution everywhere, no save foods, no rules, no laws, no courts, no justice. the idea of privatizing everything is pure and utter nonsense. that is what libertarianism is, it's privatization of everything. essentially getting rid of all government and replacing it with private corporations that sell you what the government provides. No fairness, no equal opportunity, a wild west shoot it out society.
Here is one of the places that you can get the truth instead of being cynical. http://www.factcheck.org/tag/debt/
The fact is that Obama has reduced the debt, increased jobs and saved this nation from a full blown depression.
As far as the Affordable Healthcare Act, it is a success and everyday is becoming more and more successful.